If you think paying a little more for organic food gets you a more nutritious and safer product, you might want to save your money.

A study led by researchers at Stanford University says that organic products aren’t necessarily more nutritional than conventional varieties, and they’re no less susceptible to contamination from disease-causing microbes like E. coli either.

The findings run counter to the commonly believed wisdom. Organic foods are grown without man-made pesticides or heavy reliance on antibiotics and growth hormones to boost yields; organic farmers also use natural-based fertilizers, like manure, and raise livestock in less-confined spaces — all of which some growers say are key contributors to a healthier and sometimes more nutritious product. Consumers who buy organic have been willing to pay up to twice as much for goods with organic labels.

But the latest results, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, suggest that buyers may be wasting their money. “We did not find strong evidence that organic foods are more nutritious or healthier than conventional foods,” says Dr. Crystal Smith-Spangler, an instructor in the division of general medical disciplines at Stanford. “And both organic and conventional foods seem to have a similar risk of contamination with bacteria, so consumers shouldn’t assume that one type of food has a lower risk or is safer in terms of food-borne illnesses. Both are equally likely to be contaminated.”

For their new study, Smith-Spangler and her colleagues conducted a review of two categories of research, including 17 studies that compared health outcomes between consumers of organic vs. conventional food products and 223 studies that analyzed the nutritional content of the foods, including key vitamins, minerals and fats.

While the researchers found little difference in nutritional content, they did find that organic produce were 30% less likely to have pesticide residue than conventional fruits and vegetables, which makes sense given that organic farmers depend less on synthetic pest-control methods. Neither organic nor conventional foods showed levels of pesticides high enough to exceed food-safety thresholds. And although both organic and conventional meats were equally likely to be contaminated with bacteria, albeit at very low rates, organic chicken and pork were 33% less likely than conventional livestock to harbor bacteria that were resistant to three or more antibiotics (resistance is an indication of possible overuse of the drugs).

Smith-Spangler’s team separated all foods into two general groups — organic and conventional — so the researchers stress that there may be individual differences in the way specific farmers, either those that use organic methods or those relying on conventional ones, grow their plants or livestock. But overall, there doesn’t seem to be much support for the claim that organic foods are more nutritious.

The researchers did find, however, that organic milk and chicken contained higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, a healthy fat also found in fish that can reduce the risk of heart disease. Organic produce also contained more total phenols than conventional varieties; phenols include flavonoids that work as antioxidants to fight genetic damage that can lead to cancer and even some neurological disorders like Parkinson’s. But these nutritional differences were small, and the researchers were reluctant to make much of them until further studies confirm the trends.

Based on the few studies included in the analysis that compared health outcomes in people eating organic vs. conventional, there was no evidence that one group was healthier than the other. Some of the studies found that children eating organic produce had lower levels of pesticide residue in their urine than those consuming conventional produce, but the numbers were too small to draw any general conclusions.

Smith-Spangler says the findings should help to educate consumers at the market about what they are buying. Organic foods are produced with fewer pesticides and more natural-growing practices, but that doesn’t always translate into a more nutritious or healthier product.

It's no longer about organic vs non-organic. It has changed but companies are hiding somewhat (many of us know this) behind an illusion. It's about Dupont and Monsanto pesticides. Round-up is built into non-organic foods. I might as well be drinking a shotglass of this round-up. GMO - So, you eat GMO corn filled with pesticides and who knows what else. Reality dictates we don't know what we're eating. Big business also engrained chemicals in their seeds forcing growers to buy new seeds every years.

Have you read the ingredients (yes ingredients that are not posted) in dairy products and pork? It's enough to make me want to throw up.

In 1972/3, I received the back cover of Life mag with my sister-in-law carrying a then baby niece. It tactfully mocked organics. They didn't want the competition then and they sure don't want it now.

What Time has pointed out here is true... Organic (non genetically modified foods/seeds) definitely have more vitamins persay.. they are definitely better than the other ones.. but again how much is too much ? You know its not easy to produce the foods in the quantities to meet the increasing demands,.. and if the organic foods demand also raises at that rate can they really produce the food and still stick to the labels saying its organic ? i highly dbt it.. self sustinance is the key.. grown ur own vegetables n fruits.. amounts that are enuf for ur family this is when the world will get back to being healthy...

My family has been eating organic for a while now, and it has nothing to do with us believing the food is more nutritious, we know it's not. What's important to us is not eating the pesticide residue that is all over commercially grown produce. We also know that USDA certified organic products contain absolutely no GMO ingredients, and that is very important to us! What Time should really do an article on, is the nutritional difference between grass fed meats and grain fed meats. A lot of people believe that organic chicken, beef, or pork is more nutritious because they do not use growth hormones or antibiotics, and it is slightly more nutritious because they don't use them. But the fact is, unless it's grass fed beef, or pastured chicken or pork, the animals are still fed the same grain diet that big agra uses. Read up on the nutritional difference between grass fed and pasture meet versus grain fed meat, you'll see what I mean. I've done a lot of research on this, and my family will no longer any other kind of meat.

more organic, less poison. that's enough for me. as to nutrition, face it: we in the west have better nutrition that most of the world. even when i was a kid eating all the crap they fed us in the 40's and 50's, I was still eating better, with better vitamins and nutrition than most of the world. even if i ate nothing but peanut butter and velveeta or cheese whiz (do they still make this) and had a ham sandwich every day for lunch, i'd be eating better. so forget the nutrtion argument. it's about pesticides and poison. i tend to not like 'em in my food, so, where I can afford organic (and I can't always) I buy it. the organic produces might take note: lower the price, increase the numbers of buyers. could work for you, too.

Standford is one of the leading medical schools in the country. All of the top medical schools in the U.S. are funded by the big pharmacutical companies to teach medicine and drugs, not health. Why would they tell you that organic food is safer and healthier. Big Pharma doesnt want us to be healthy, they want us to be sick so that they can sell us their expensive medications and surgical procedures.

This article seems to be written based off of opinion and not fact. There is no chart comparing the nutritional values of organic and traditional food. They say researchers have found "little" difference in nutritional values. Well where's the data to back up these claims. And its not all about nutrition. The majority of people that eat organic do it because its good for your body and the Earth. Instead of supporting big agra which produces food using genetically modified seeds, sprays it with manmade pesticides, and makes it grow bigger and faster using radioactive fertilizers, we are choosing to support small family farms that actually care about the consumer and planet. And the only reason organic food is more expensive than other food is because its not demanded like other foods are. Not because its more expensive to produce. If everyone decided to start buying organic food the prices would go down and the price of other food would skyrocket. The price of organic food has to be higher in order for that company to make profit. If everyone ate organic than there would be no need to keep the prices high. The cost would actually be less than other foods because organic farmers don't need to purchase genetically modified seeds, pesticides, fertilizers, growth hormones, and antibiotics. When farmers spray the land with pesticides and herbicides, over time it depletes the nutrient levels in the soil. This is why food that has been mass produced by big agra doesn't taste as good as something that has been produced organically. Organic soil retains its nutrients, thus making the produce more nutrient dense and better tasting. The fact of the matter is big business DOESN'T care about you and me. They will do anything to make a profit even it means buying out the politicians so that they can get away with whatever they want. Or even if it destroys the very planet we all call home. Do you want some stranger coming in your home and spraying chemicals all over your furniture? Of course not. So stopping feeding the greed of these big businesses. Go out and spend the extra dollar on something organic

I was able to get more out of reading the comments than the article which struck me as trying to do it's best to defend the regular food industry. I suppose it's not too hard to see why that is a necessary political move. Anyway the comments encouraged me to continue looking to buy organics as much as possible.

Because I was frustrated trying to really understand where the weight of evidence fell in relation to research on organic foods and other nutritional topics, I created my own site, Fact or Fizzle. I reviewed and rated all of the relevant research on the safety and nutritional value of organics (including the Stanford study) and found little compelling evidence in support of organics. When study quality and conflicts of interest are taken into account, the weight of evidence is mixed. Some studies have found nutritional and safety advantages of organics, but as many have not.

As many other have stated, no one thinks organic foods have more vitamins. The reason is to avoid pesticides and hormones. DUH. I have lost a tremendous amount of respect for Time printing this propagandist drivel.

I actually read this awhile ago but felt compelled to come back to comment, since it has really been bugging me... I actually hoped it would have been corrected or removed by now.

I urge everyone to join the Boycott-Big-Food-to-support-our-right-to-know movement. Vote with your pocketbook! Search on line for No on 37 donors, and take the list with you when you go grocery shopping. If you are a California voter, vote yes on 37.

The Stanford scandal comes on the heels of the Pink Ribbon scandal, wherein it was disclosed that the donors to the Susan G. Komen Foundation are the world's biggest polluters. Now you know why Komen focuses on the search for a cure, not identifying the causes. Many pesticides and herbicides (like Monsanto/s Roundup) are endocrine disruptors. They attack reproductive organs, men's as well as women's, but you won't see Komen breathing so much as a word about pesticides and breast cancer.

First, the so-called study was so-authored by a man once caught being paid by tobacco companies to falsify information about harmful effects of smoking. Second, Stanford has ties to Monsanto and Cargill. Monsanto is the Frankenstein of genetically engineered foods. Cargill once sued the Indian government to try to force them to criminalize seed trading among Indian farmers. Third, the timing is suspicious given the battle over whether consumers have a right to know what's in their food, with Prop. 37 calling for labeling GMOs and the whole Big Food corporatocracy pumping many millions of dollars into trying to deny consumers the right to know, with Monsanto at the top of the list, at $4.2 million. The questions that should have been asked are

This article has a lot of flaws as mentioned by the commenters below, but the part that bothers me is the terminology: "organic vs. conventional." Since when is genetically modifying seeds, pumping livestock full of chemicals, and spraying poison on crops the "conventional" way to grow food? I would argue that it's a bad idea which has run its course.

Everyone who has the financial means should buy organic for the simple reason that it encourages grocery stores to stock locally grown products which are always fresher (and therefore tastier and more nutritious) than food that was harvested too early and shipped thousands of miles.

So, organic food is higher in Omega-3 Fatty acids, is less likely to contain multiply resistant bacterias, has more antioxidants, less pesticide residue. And the study apparently lacked a metric for measuring how much lower the remaining pesticide content might be. All that is supposed to tell me that organic is no better for me nutritionally than nuclear food?

What ticks me off is that people will take it to mean its just as healthy either way. Which it isn't. It's reckless reporting.

Oh. And consuming persistent pesticides is HEALTHY for us? No thanks. Monsanto is always behind these studies; I'm sure if you could actually do some research before you publish articles you would find some very large petrochemical and GMO seed companies behind the studies.

That study's co-author, Dr. Ingram Olkin, has a deep history as an "anti-science" propagandist working for Big Tobacco. Stanford University has also been found to have deep financial ties to Cargill, a powerful proponent of genetically engineered foods and an enemy of GMO labeling Proposition 37.

The following document shows financial ties between Philip Morris and Ingram Olkin

http://tobaccodocuments.org/bl... worked with Stanford University to develop a "multivariate" statistical algorithm, which is essentially a way to lie with statistics.

This research was a key component in Big Tobacco's use of anti-science to attack whistleblowers and attempt to claim cigarettes are perfectly safe. Thanks to efforts of people like Ingram, articles like this one were published: "The Case against Tobacco Is Not Closed: Why Smoking May Not Be Dangerous to Your Health!"

Stanford has no right to decide for me what is or is not "worth" the higher price of organic food.

I believe anything that kills pests and disease on a plant can't be good for my body. A diet with more organic food lowers our exposure to pesticides: check the study out at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

Organic will always be healthier. Although the actual food itself may not always contain more nutrients compared to non organic or gmo foods...the bottom line is unless its organic....ur purchasing foods laced with poisons and toxins....today u cant even pick up food in the store that doesn't have gmo ingredients...unless its organic.

To me this article sounds like it was written by someone who doesn't know truely what they are talking about....or its another one of Monsanto's clever plots to misguide the public about organic food.

There are a lot of good information at our access about why organic foods are so healthy and why its important to cut out of your diet those foods that are not organic.

Monsanto is the company responsible for creating Ddt..agent orange....and genetically modified organisms. They have genetically modified crops that have pesticides growing in the plants so that when a bug bites it...it will die. Some of the biggest gmo crops are CORN...WHEAT...SOY...CANOLA...even sugar beats(guess where a large portion of where the "sugar" labeled on the ingredient list come from) if u haven't noticed every packaged food has corn wheat or soy in it.

PLEASE RESEARCH HOW GMO'S ARE CREATED....ITS ABSOLUTLY DISGUSTING. WHILE UR DOING THAT CHECK OUT LAB STUDY RESULTS FOR LAB RATS FORCED TO EAT GMO'S ...TELL ME AFTER READING THAT...THAT YOUR NOT GONNA THINK ABOUT IT THE NEXT TIME YOU SHOVE A HANDFUL OF POISONIOUS GMO'S IN YOUR MOUTH. HAVE U THOUGHT TO FIND OUT WHAT OUR LIVESTOCK AND FARM ANIMALS ARE TRADITIONALLY FED? IF U GUESSED WITH GMO'S. YOUR RIGHT! mmmmm wonder why so many mad cow desease outbreaks..

THE REAL ISSUE SHOULD BE WHY is it healthier to eat organic rather than if organic has more nutritional value than non organic.

Gmo's...pesticides.. hormones ..antibiotics and other poisons added to our food...our produce and meats ....have helped lead to the cancer epidemic....obesity epidemic ...and a lot more disease and auto immune deceases that have exploded in the past few years...and will only get worse.

There has even been studies that prove u can reverse these diseases including cancer by eating organic foods.....WHY DONT WE HEAR ABOUT THAT...check out gerson therapy

A huge arguement from Monsanto has been that they are helping to end world hungry and that there Gmo crops can help them achieve this. They also repeat over and over about how their Gmo seeds and crops are no different from unmolested seeds and crop based on structural and nutritional values.....

IF THIS WERE TRUE...WHY IS MONSANTO SO OPPOSSED TO LABEL THEIR GMO FOODS that are practically in everything? WHY ARE THEY SPENDING MILLIONS ON DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN AGAINST LABELING GMO FOODS IN PRODUCTS WE BUY? THEY TRY TO TELL US IT WILL COST THE CONSUMER TOO MUCH MONEY TO MAKE THE TRANSITION TO LABEL gmo's . When the truth is...it will cost Monsanto money...not the consumer. They dont want to be required by law to label gmo's because its bad for the company PROFITS! IF PEOPLE KNEW WHAT GMO'S ARE AND HOW THEY EFFECT UR BODY AND HEALTH...NOBODY WOULD EAT THEM. Monsanto's own employees dont even want to eat gmo's...instead they have even requested organic and non gmo foods. They try scare tactics to make us vote against food labeling propositions THATS OUR RIGHT AS COMSUMERS TO KNOW WHATS IN OUR FOODS.

ORGANIC FOODS ARE NOT THE NEW FAD FOR THE UPPITY CONSUMERS. ORGANIC FOODS ARE BECOMING MORE POPULAR BECAUSE MORE AND MORE PEOPLE ARE FINALLY PAYING ATTENTION TO WHATS IN THE FOOD THEY ARE EATING....WE ARE BUYING ORGANIC NON GMO FOODS BECAUSE THEY ARE HEALTHIER FOR MORE REASONS THAN JUST NUTRITIONAL VALUE

TIME, this article clearly isn't fooling anyone. You've been a good stooge for the chem-agri complex, keeping this "article" in the news feed for the better part of a week. That should be enough to justify the funding they provide. Now go tell them the scheme failed, and let this embarrasment quietly fade away.

Just another ignorant article. There are many reasons to eat organic. The writer obviously has never heard of the "red tide" that occurs in the Gulf of Mexico every year. The runoff of fertilizers and other chemicals spills into the rivers that lead into the Gulf of Mexico creating a massive "dead zone" that kills all life for weeks. Grocery stores can't sell any clams or mussels from that area until it clears up. Maybe I'm over reacting but last I knew the "Red Tide" that forms in the Gulf every year only gets as big as the state of Rhode Island.

Imagine for one moment that this study is accurate and what science is telling consumers is that you're aren't getting what you think you're paying for going organic. The National Organic Program permits just as many potentially carcinogenic, albeit "natural" pesticides/herbicides as conventionally grown crops. There is no conspiracy as agricultural science has known this for decades. However, organic producers have also known this and allow this myth to perpetuate because it would hurt their bottom line. That is the conspiracy.

Another advantage to organic, aside from not eating pesticides and GMOs, is the taste. The problem is if too many people start buying organic the price will probably go down and more organic will sell. Then revenues for the chemical companies, and the college studies they fund, will fall.

If I have to choose between meat/produce that comes from millions of years of evolution and meat/produce that comes from Genetic Modification, chemical fertilizers, poisonous pesticides and what not, I'd choose the former.

I have rarely seen as frivolous an argument (even on Time magazine) as the one made by this article. Nobody cares about the E-Coli content of the produce between organic and non-organic foods. We buy organics (a) because they taste better and (b) because they don't contain the kinds of chemicals that slowly poison us.

Nice try though. You must be trying to land job with Monsanto as their propagandist in chief.

I buy organic because I have a young child (pesticides *may* impact younger children more adversely than adults) and I can afford it, but guess what? You will be JUST FINE if you don't buy organic. I guarantee you that you probably ate nothing organic when you were growing up.

Pesticide residue by DPR is measured in PPT, not ppm. And with the current residue level cutoff point, a single individual would have to eat 30,000 heads of letttuce, EVERY DAY, FOR A MONTH, to ingest a carcinogenic level. If you people think this world could survive without the use of pesticides, think again. In fact, why dont you come out to my farm, and look at the organic lettuce vs conventional grown lettuce. 2 steps into the organicaly grown field, and you would tell yourself, oh hell no, Im not eating that. Have you ever seen a lettuce field infested with armyworm or cabbage looper? These worms feed on leaf tissue, and deficate twice their body weight all over the leaf surfaces. Trust me, if you walked any of my organic fields, you would think twice. Why do I grow organic you might ask? Cuz people like you send my kids to college...

Macrobiotics was one such fashion, a diet that measured the yin-yang dynamic of each food and allegedly inhibited carcinogens from taking any hold in the body. That its still around after both the founders contracted cancer is one of the modern unsolved mysteries.

If you think paying a little more for organic food gets you a more nutritious product your a moron. That is like doing a study to determine if Coke does a better job getting rid of pimples better than Pepsi does. Organic has to do with safer not more nutritious. We need to reconsider if Stanford is tier 1 school. Those guys need to be fired because of stupidity. Also whoever wrote this article and whoever approved it needs to be fired. It is sad that Gov money was probably used to do this study and even more sad if it was money from people that make non organic food.

I do understand that somebody might be pushing organic as more nutritious as a selling point but anybody with a brain has to know that is a lie.

@MelM I totally agree with what you say. Although I can attest that it is more expensive to be an organic farmer. The organic certification alone costs thousands of dollars. Your crops are also much more susceptible to infestation and other environmental conditions due to the lack of poison being used, thereby making for a smaller crop in most instances.

That said, you're spot on about the fact that buying organic is not about things having higher nutrition content. The fact is, the food is more nutritious at least in the fact that it doesn't contain poison. Just because something doesn't exceed "Safety Thresholds" does not make it safe.

So by all means, if we send your kids to college eating your organic lettuce, insult us and tell us not to eat it. I'm glad your kids are in college, because you're obviously not too bright. But thanks anyway for the offer of some lettuce, and the snark. I grow my own organic produce. UgrowIdontcare.

@Rob_E@MelM I will also add that if more people demanded organic food, then big agra would start producing as well, so we would probably see a decrease in price. However, I don't see that ever happening, most Americans are solely focused on price price price, not realizing that they're slowly poisoning their own bodies.

@BillSundry@Rob_E@MelM People oftentimes can't afford organic so they have to focus on price price price, that's the way it is. They really can't worry about big agra and demanding organic- they need to feed their families, let's get real.